Reeves says protections remain for ‘working people' amid wealth tax speculation
But she said promises not to increase income tax, national insurance and value added tax (VAT) remained in place, along with her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules.
The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multi-billion black hole to fill, fuelling speculation she might target the assets of the wealthy.
Asked to rule that out, Ms Reeves told reporters: 'We haven't even set the date for the budget yet, so please forgive me if I'm not going to speculate about what might happen at an event that we haven't even decided a date on yet.
'But we've been really clear in our manifesto about the taxes that we won't increase, and we're not going to increase the taxes that working people pay, their income tax, their national insurance and their VAT, because I do recognise the struggle that ordinary working people have faced these last few years with the cost of living.'
She added that her fiscal rules were 'non-negotiable' as 'they are what give working people security, around interest rates for example'.
The narrow margin by which the Chancellor is on course to meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through revenues rather than borrowing means she is vulnerable to any increase in debt interest costs or reductions in planned savings, such as on welfare.
Ms Reeves said: 'Interest rates have come down four times in the last year under this Labour Government because of the stability that we've managed to return to the economy, which is underpinned by those fiscal rules, which have enabled the Bank of England to cut interest rates.'
The Bank's governor Andrew Bailey has suggested there could be larger cuts if the jobs market shows signs of weakness, pointing to the impact of Ms Reeves' decision to hike employers' national insurance contributions (NICs).
Businesses are 'adjusting employment' as a result of the NICs increase and workers are 'also having pay rises that are possibly less than they would have been if the NICs change hadn't happened', he said.
In an interview with The Times, the governor said the British economy was growing behind its potential.
This could open up 'slack' to bring down inflation, he said, meaning prices on goods would rise less swiftly compared with earnings in future.
Mr Bailey said he believes the base rate set by the Bank of England would be lowered in future, after it was held in June.
The current Bank rate of 4.25%, which has a bearing on all lending in the UK – including mortgages – will be reviewed again on August 7 by the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee.
'I really do believe the path is downward,' Mr Bailey told The Times.
He added: 'But we continue to use the words 'gradual and careful' because… some people say to me 'why are you cutting when inflation's above target?''
Treasury Chief Secretary Darren Jones said it was entirely normal for firms to adjust their business plans because of a tax hike.
He told Times Radio: 'We've also seen the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country, and it's normal for business to make adjustments to their plans, depending on the cost of business, in the normal way.
'But we're really focused as a Government in supporting business to create more jobs.'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Labour are going to raise your taxes, again, to pay for their mistakes.
'Britain doesn't need more taxes. People are taxed too high already.
'It needs a government committed to bringing down spending so we live within our means. Only the Conservative Party believes this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Ofwat scrapped to end water regulation that ‘failed customers and environment'
Environment Secretary Steve Reed made the announcement in response to an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe commissioned by the Government to answer public fury over pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, soaring bills, shareholder pay outs and bosses' bonuses. Mr Reed said the move to create a single 'powerful' regulator taking in the functions of four existing bodies with overlapping functions would curb pollution and 'prevent the abuses of the past for customers'. He said it would ensure 'British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes we saw last year', and committed to cut water companies' sewage pollution in half within five years.
Glasgow Times
14 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Ofwat scrapped to end water regulation that ‘failed customers and environment'
Environment Secretary Steve Reed made the announcement in response to an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe commissioned by the Government to answer public fury over pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, soaring bills, shareholder pay outs and bosses' bonuses. Mr Reed said the move to create a single 'powerful' regulator taking in the functions of four existing bodies with overlapping functions would curb pollution and 'prevent the abuses of the past for customers'. He said it would ensure 'British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes we saw last year', and committed to cut water companies' sewage pollution in half within five years.
New Statesman
15 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The new racism of the British right
Photo by Mina Kim / Reuters What does it mean to belong to a nation that doesn't recognise you? If you've spent any time on British political X in the last few days, you've likely seen a video of GB News US Correspondent Steve Edginton interviewing people in a pocket of South London about their relationship to British identity. The segment is part of a wider documentary titled Yookay vs Britain: How immigration transformed a nation. But one moment in particular has captured public attention: a young black man passionately articulating his experience and sense of belonging. He is asked by Edgington about Britain and Britishness, and talks about south London, about Stockwell and Clapham, and how he was born in Britain and it is his 'home'. When asked about Alfred the Great, the Duke of Wellington and Churchill, he is a bit unsure of himself but basically chirpy. This is someone speaking with genuine cheer about where he is from. And the video should have been seen as a powerful example of authentic human expression. Instead, it has become a Rorschach test for the anxieties of the political right about culture, identity and race. As Harrison Pitt put it 'he is anything but assimilated' and 'associates 'Britain' with its most conquered, colonised, YooKay areas' as opposed to its 'host people'. One young man in south London has obliviously become the personification of a perceived immigration emergency – and crisis of British nationhood. For some time now, multiculturalism has been drifting to the centre of right-wing political discourse. Mass migration, cultural fragmentation, and identity politics have made conversations around integration deeply contested. These disputes have spawned the 'Yookay' meme Pitt referred to, an ironic shorthand for the nation some believe Britain has become: deracinated, multicultural, its ancestral roots torn up or decayed. And this is why, in some quarters of the political right, we're seeing the rise of what could be called 'aesthetic citizenship' – the idea that one's claim to national belonging isn't measured by shared values, civic participation, or contribution, but by how well you conform to a dominant aesthetic defined by speech, dress, tone, posture, even emotional register. The young man in the video didn't 'fit the part'. He was confident. He wore streetwear. He spoke in Multicultural London English. He was expressive, unapologetically himself. For some viewers, that alone disqualified him from true British citizenship – not on moral or civic grounds, but on aesthetic ones. This doesn't align with the 'model minority' trope – someone like Rishi Sunak, for instance, who embodies a version of Britishness that's polished, palatable, and deferential to traditional norms. No one would brand Sunak as 'Yookay' or question whether he belongs. The backlash reveals something deeper: some people don't actually want the integration of minorities; they want assimilation. To participate in British life isn't enough. To be proud of Britain and call this place your home isn't enough. You must perform a specific version of Britishness – soft-spoken, composed, restrained and possibly middle-class – to be considered truly one of us. And there is a growing danger that we are drifting into a form of racial – or more precisely, aesthetic – essentialism. This is a worldview that judges belonging not by shared commitment or civic identity, but by whether someone acts, speaks, or dresses like the children of the English shires. This ignores a crucial historical fact: many non-white Britons are second- or third-generation citizens, raised in homes shaped not by afternoon tea and Enid Blyton, but by diasporic memory, migration trauma, religious conviction, and postcolonial resilience. These are not moral deficiencies. They are the consequence of distinct class trajectories and intergenerational cultural hybridity. But more importantly, none of this precludes love of country. None of it disqualifies someone from national loyalty, public service, or a desire to belong. You can wear a puffer jacket and love Britain. You can speak Multicultural London English and still believe in the Crown. You can be a Pentecostal and sing the national anthem with sincerity. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe And this is precisely why aesthetic essentialism is so dangerous. It refuses to acknowledge the complexity of modern Britain. It tells a young man from Brixton, who may deeply love this country but doesn't speak in clipped RP, that he is not one of us. This is not to say that one cannot raise legitimate concerns about aspects of urban youth culture. Critique has its place. But increasingly, these critiques are being used to mask a deeper racial hostility. Yes, the interviewee in the viral clip displayed a shaky grasp of British history. But let's be honest: how many white Brits in Brixton – or anywhere else in the country – have opinions about King Alfred or the Duke of Wellington? Would their ignorance be used to question their Britishness? The real issue isn't knowledge. It's framing. The clip is being used to pathologise a young black man's entire presence, while ignoring broader systemic failures – such as the shortcomings of the British education system in teaching a cohesive and inclusive national history in the first place. But perhaps that's unsurprising. The segment forms part of a larger documentary titled Yookay vs Britain – a framing that is inherently antagonistic. From the outset, it positions multiethnicity as a threat to 'real' Britain rather than a constituent part of it. The version of Britishness valorised by parts of the right isn't even reflected in most white British citizens. Most people don't speak Received Pronunciation, attend evensong, or read Kipling. So what is the standard – and who gets to set it? One wonders, too, how these same critics view white radical progressives: people born and raised in Britain who are hostile to the monarchy, embarrassed by empire, and deeply critical of British values. Their dissent is tolerated, even celebrated, because their aesthetic still 'fits'. This exposes the core issue. We don't have a shared definition of Britishness. What we have instead is a fragmented Britain, where each subculture – liberal, conservative, urban, rural – has its own imagined standard of who qualifies as authentically British. And that, I would argue, is the greater threat to national cohesion than anything captured by the word 'Yookay' – or than any young black man in south London. [Further reading: Anarchy in the 'yookay'] Related
